Fix typos #1794
Fix typos #1794
Conversation
|
@algonell how would you feel about force-pushing and keeping one PR open for these typo fixes? |
|
@dscho absolutely, I'm a bit worried about the OS X failing / stuck jobs... |
Right, that's something nobody seems to take care of. On the other hand, since your typo fixes do not touch code, you can ignore failing CI builds, right? |
|
Well yes, but one of my That's why I'm extra cautious about it. So should I submit? |
Does this change a user-visible message? If so, it might be fraught with peril to change it: Third-party applications do not enjoy any consistent error types being reported by Git, so they have to parse the error messages. And if those error messages change, those applications break. |
|
Agreed, a potential breaking change, that's why I skipped it. |
|
/submit |
|
Error: Ignoring PR with empty title and/or body |
|
/submit |
|
Error: Could not determine full name of algonell |
|
/submit |
|
Submitted as [email protected] To fetch this version into To fetch this version to local tag |
|
On the Git mailing list, Eric Sunshine wrote (reply to this): On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 2:35 PM Andrew Kreimer via GitGitGadget
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Fix typos in documentation, comments, etc.
>
> Andrew Kreimer (20):
Thanks. These all look fine.
Out of curiosity, did you use a tool to discover these mistakes? |
|
User |
|
Thank you Eric! Sure, my secret sauce is codespell. |
|
On the Git mailing list, "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" wrote (reply to this): All of these look correct.
Maybe all of the commits could be combined into one commit with the
message “treewide: fix typos”. But that wasn’t asked for last time.[1]
So I dunno.
🔗 1: https://lore.kernel.org/git/[email protected]/
--
Kristoffer Haugsbakk |
|
User |
|
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this): "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <[email protected]> writes:
> All of these look correct.
>
> Maybe all of the commits could be combined into one commit with the
> message “treewide: fix typos”. But that wasn’t asked for last time.[1]
> So I dunno.
It depends. When done carefully to make sure that nothing textually
conflicts with any topics in flight, a single "treewide" patch is
slightly nicer. If nothing conflicts with nothing else, either
format is fine. If something have nasty conflicts (e.g., a refactor
moved the comment with typos far from the original location or even
to a different file), individual patch form is easier to discard the
ones that need to wait.
I do not know which case this 20-patch collection falls into.
Thanks. |
|
On the Git mailing list, Eric Sunshine wrote (reply to this): On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 4:42 PM Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <[email protected]> writes:
> > Maybe all of the commits could be combined into one commit with the
> > message “treewide: fix typos”. But that wasn’t asked for last time.[1]
> > So I dunno.
>
> It depends. When done carefully to make sure that nothing textually
> conflicts with any topics in flight, a single "treewide" patch is
> slightly nicer. If nothing conflicts with nothing else, either
> format is fine. If something have nasty conflicts (e.g., a refactor
> moved the comment with typos far from the original location or even
> to a different file), individual patch form is easier to discard the
> ones that need to wait.
>
> I do not know which case this 20-patch collection falls into.
For what it's worth, I found the submission easier to review as
separate patches because it allowed me to review a small batch, do
something else for a bit, review another batch, do something else,
etc., without losing my place since I deleted the ones I had already
reviewed, so I knew that those remaining in my Inbox were still
pending review. |
|
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this): Eric Sunshine <[email protected]> writes:
> For what it's worth, I found the submission easier to review as
> separate patches because it allowed me to review a small batch, do
> something else for a bit, review another batch, do something else,
> etc., without losing my place since I deleted the ones I had already
> reviewed, so I knew that those remaining in my Inbox were still
> pending review.
It is a very good point.
FWIW, all except for one apply cleanly to both v2.46.0 and 'seen',
and one fixes a typo introduced between v2.46.0 and 'master'.
Will queue.
Thanks.
|
|
This patch series was integrated into seen via git@c9a92b0. |
|
This patch series was integrated into next via git@07777d1. |
|
On the Git mailing list, Andrew Kreimer wrote (reply to this): On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 03:35:25PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 2:35 PM Andrew Kreimer via GitGitGadget
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Fix typos in documentation, comments, etc.
> >
> > Andrew Kreimer (20):
>
> Thanks. These all look fine.
>
> Out of curiosity, did you use a tool to discover these mistakes?
Thank you all!
Sure, my secret sauce is codespell:
https://github.com/codespell-project/codespell |
|
@algonell did you really mean to close this PR? If you plan on submitting a v2, GitGitGadget is set up to do that only when |
|
@dscho apologies for the extra noise... Actually I wanted to sync and rebase some new things (from my next branch) I think I better to send patches via Thinking out loud: the bot should not close an 'empty' PR...?! |
That's not the bot, that's GitHub doing that. |
2 participants
Fix typos in documentation, comments, etc.
cc: Eric Sunshine [email protected]
cc: "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" [email protected]